Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15076 of 2021 Applicant :- Sanjay Vishwakarma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Kumar Tripathi,Shashi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit through e-mode which is on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mridul Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the material on record.
The instant application is being moved by the applicant namely, Sanjay Vishwakarma invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime/FIR no.0067 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Churkhi, District-Jalaun.
From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court below.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2021), which read thus :
"(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session."
After interpreting the aforesaid clause it is clear that the Legislature in its wisdom bestowed two avenues open for the accused. If the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.
Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit.
I have perused the earlier order of this Court dated 07.10.2021 whereby an opportunity was granted to the applicant to inquire from his client about the payment of Rs.six lacs which is subject matter of the present FIR. When the case is taken up today, learned counsel for the applicant has cut sorry figure and sought further time to deposit the amount.
Keeping in view the accusation made in the FIR, the Court is not inclined to grant any further time as the applicant is playing tricks with the Court.
The Court feels that in order to have in-depth probe into the matter, custodial interrogation is imperative.
Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter, the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 Sumit S Digitally signed by RAHUL CHATURVEDI Date: 2021.10.27 10:57:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad